If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Your statement: I also have never seen such a study with methodology that I approve of.

Therein lies the problem. I suspect that you will only approve a methodology that validates you pre-conceived notions. Before you get all defensive I am probably also guilty of this. .

I already showed what I would approve. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare the children of same sex couples to those of heterosexual couples, or children of a gay parent to children of a straight parent that's fine. Good information is at most harmless. But it would only make sense to try to compare samples as otherwise similar as possible. There is an economic and philosophical difference between people who move to the sticks when they have kids and people who stay in the city when they have kids. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by FlaGator

I never said there was anything wrong with your niece. Is there something wrong with here or is this another straw man?

Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

Sorry, I missed the qualifier "some studies". I have no doubt that some studies show that. Any that might have the signature of the Family Research Institute, American Family Association, the LDS Church , Mark Regnerus, or Paul Cameron aren't going to be taken seriously. I have been debunking these kinds of studies for decades. I will say that while the blatant bias goes unchecked, the style has improved. I'm still stunned when otherwise intelligent people quote them.

The other issue with your post was that I was not addressing the validity of the studies on same sex parents. I suspected before you even posted that this would be what you would comment on instead of participating in the larger topic of whether acts between consenting adults have repercussions beyond the consenting parties.

If a person wanted to waste the time and money, he could easily prove that heterosexuals should not be having or raising children. Our prisons are full of the children of heterosexual relationships.

I already showed what I would approve. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare the children of same sex couples to those of heterosexual couples, or children of a gay parent to children of a straight parent that's fine. Good information is at most harmless. But it would only make sense to try to compare samples as otherwise similar as possible. There is an economic and philosophical difference between people who move to the sticks when they have kids and people who stay in the city when they have kids. Wouldn't you agree?

Some studies show that when those involved in same sex relationships adopt or via in vitro fertilisation have children the children grow up with issues not common in homes with two parents of the opposite sex. In this case the are broad repercussions to what the two adults consented to.

Sorry, I missed the qualifier "some studies". I have no doubt that some studies show that. Any that might have the signature of the Family Research Institute, American Family Association, the LDS Church , Mark Regnerus, or Paul Cameron aren't going to be taken seriously. I have been debunking these kinds of studies for decades. I will say that while the blatant bias goes unchecked, the style has improved. I'm still stunned when otherwise intelligent people quote them.

If a person wanted to waste the time and money, he could easily prove that heterosexuals should not be having or raising children. Our prisons are full of the children of heterosexual relationships.

If that read "some heterosexuals" then I would agree with the statement. As it stands that statement is totally deserving of ridicule.

You still haven't addressed the larger issue of moral relativity

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

You highlight the problem, there should only be one set of moral standards and everyone should be held accountable to them. To do otherwise it to venture in the the ethical desert of of moral relativism and the post-modern philosophy of post modernism that denies the existence of absolute truth.

G. K. Chesterton posed the question "If truth is relative then to what is it relative?"

If there are multiple sets of morals then whose morals win out in a conflict of morals? Does society's morals trump the individual's morals? If a society's moral win out then what happens when the morals of two society's clash (example: western morality vs. Islamic morality)? In a war of values does might make right? If Islamic values triumph then are all the western morals proven to be immoral? Has same homosexuality gone from being morally acceptable to an immoral act punishable by death because Islamic views are implemented at the point of a sword (or an AK-47)?

Again, you are making an argument for "morals". I am making an argument for what should be the law of the land, in a nation of many faiths, but with a secular government charged with protecting the rights of all.

How do you decide whose morals prevail and become enshrined as the law? That's why we have a representative democracy, and that is why the laws of the USA are ever-changing even if God's law remains the same. Most Americans don't consider gays to be evil criminals anymore , and the changes in the law reflect that. A similar change is slowly being enacted regarding the possession of marijuana.

It ultimately comes down to victims, when it comes to the law. If there is no victim, there is no crime. That's pretty much what people think these days and want the laws to reflect. And, with a representative democracy, that's what they get.